Thursday, May 7, 1998
Don’t tell Southerners that Civil War is over
BOOK: Though most say main issue is due to race, truth may lie
elsewhere
By Christopher Bates
Daily Bruin Contributor
On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern
Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant. This army was the main Confederate
force, and its surrender effectively marked the end of the Civil
War. At least, that’s what it says in the history books.
However, not every American sees the war that way. And those
people who choose to keep the war alive serve as the subject of
Tony Horwitz’s "Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the
Unfinished Civil War."
The book is a collection of 13 vignettes, which move freely
across geographical space as Horwitz wanders about nine Southern
states. This disjointed structure allows Horwitz to explore
multiple themes at the same time without ever committing to
one.
The notion that many Southerners haven’t quite given up on the
"lost cause" is nothing new. Usually, though, the matter is reduced
to one of race – there is an assumption that those Southerners who
keep the Civil War alive do so as part of some sort of racist
agenda. While Horwitz sees ample evidence of racism, he realizes
that the truth is more complex, and that the Civil War appeals to
different Southerners on different levels, sometimes to the
complete exclusion of race as an issue.
Consider Robert Lee Hodge, the centerpiece of four of the
vignettes. Hodge is a Civil War reenactor, a person who dons period
garb and participates in battle recreations in the hopes of
recapturing the Civil War soldier experience. Like his namesake,
Hodge remains fairly ambiguous about the race question: "I don’t
give a shit if my sister marries a black guy."
Instead, for Hodge, the Civil War becomes more of a means of
achieving a sort of transcendental state, a higher understanding of
life and human existence that one has to work for to grasp. Thoreau
had Walden – Rob Hodge has Gettysburg.
Of course, racism, while not the whole picture, is a big part of
it. But, even in the case of avowed racists, Horwitz tries to
present them on their own terms, emphasizing their basic humanity.
In one chapter, he recounts an encounter he had with some Ku Klux
Klansmen who were not wearing their uniforms while handing out KKK
literature. When Horwitz asks why, they explain matter-of-factly
that the hassle and cost of getting the sheets cleaned and pressed
more than once a week is just too great.
Horwitz even willingly gives space to Walt Fowler, an avowed
white supremacist who spends his time with Horwitz explaining how
the world order works, with Jewish people at the top.
"They’re a predatory race with higher intelligence than us,"
Fowler says.
When Horwitz notes that he is Jewish, Walt just shrugs and says
he should have known that, with a name like Horwitz. The whole
episode might have allowed Horwitz to make any one of a dozen
points, but he refuses to do so, allowing Fowler’s point of view to
stand on its own, without interference from the author.
In fact, Horwitz loses his veneer of impartiality only one time,
when discussing the Civil War with a group of black students. The
students refuse to consider the issues that the war brings up,
having dismissed it contemptuously as a white man’s concern. Not
having an opinion is a worse crime than having the wrong opinion,
at least as far as Horwitz is concerned.
This incident perfectly encapsulates Horwitz’s point of view.
While the author scatters nuggets of insight throughout the book,
Horwitz refuses to impose any sort of overall structure or
interpretation on his essays. The book does not conclude so much as
it fades out.
Horwitz’s point is nonetheless loud and clear. The issues
brought up by the Civil War are still open questions. They can not
be addressed and resolved simply, and so Horwitz refuses to do so.
Instead, he provides just the data and insists that the reader form
their own conclusions. Maybe the notion that the Civil War isn’t
yet over is not as absurd as it may seem.